Incineration is a waste treatment process that involves the combustion of organic substances

contained in waste materials.[1] Incineration and other high-temperature waste treatment systems are
described as "thermal treatment". Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into ash, flue
gas, and heat. The ash is mostly formed by the inorganicconstituents of the waste, and may take the
form of solid lumps or particulates carried by the flue gas. The flue gases must be cleaned of
gaseous and particulate pollutants before they are dispersed into the atmosphere. In some cases,
the heat generated by incineration can be used to generate electric power.
Incineration with energy recovery is one of several waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies such
as gasification, pyrolysis andanaerobic digestion. While incineration and gasification technologies
are similar in principle, the energy product from incineration is high-temperature heat whereas
combustible gas is often the main energy product from gasification. Incineration and gasification may
also be implemented without energy and materials recovery.
In several countries, there are still concerns from experts and local communities about the
environmental impact of incinerators (see arguments against incineration).
In some countries, incinerators built just a few decades ago often did not include a materials
separation to remove hazardous, bulky or recyclable materials before combustion. These facilities
tended to risk the health of the plant workers and the local environment due to inadequate levels of
gas cleaning and combustion process control. Most of these facilities did not generate electricity.
Incinerators reduce the solid mass of the original waste by 8085% and the volume (already
compressed somewhat ingarbage trucks) by 9596%, depending on composition and degree of
recovery of materials such as metals from the ash for recycling.[2] This means that while incineration
does not completely replace landfilling, it significantly reduces the necessary volume for
disposal. Garbage trucks often reduce the volume of waste in a built-in compressor before delivery
to the incinerator. Alternatively, at landfills, the volume of the uncompressed garbage can be
reduced by approximately 70%[citation needed] by using a stationary steel compressor, albeit with a
significant energy cost. In many countries, simplerwaste compaction is a common practice for
compaction at landfills.
Incineration has particularly strong benefits for the treatment of certain waste types in niche areas
such as clinical wastes and certain hazardous wastes where pathogens and toxins can be destroyed
by high temperatures. Examples include chemical multi-product plants with diverse toxic or very
toxic wastewater streams, which cannot be routed to a conventional wastewater treatment plant.
Waste combustion is particularly popular in countries such as Japan where land is a scarce
resource. Denmark and Sweden have been leaders in using the energy generated from incineration
for more than a century, in localised combined heat and power facilities supporting district
heating schemes.[3] In 2005, waste incineration produced 4.8% of the electricity consumption and
13.7% of the total domestic heat consumption in Denmark.[4] A number of other European countries

rely heavily on incineration for handling municipal waste, in particular Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Germany and France.[2]
Contents
[hide]

1 History
2 Technology
o 2.1 Burn pile
o 2.2 Burn barrel
o 2.3 Moving grate
o 2.4 Fixed grate
o 2.5 Rotary-kiln
o 2.6 Fluidized bed
o 2.7 Specialized incineration
o 2.8 Use of heat
o 2.9 Pollution
o 2.10 Gaseous emissions
2.10.1 Dioxin and furans
2.10.1.1 Dioxin cracking methods and limitations
2.10.1.2 Dioxin cracking in practice
2.10.2 CO2
2.10.3 Other emissions
2.10.4 Flue-gas cleaning
o 2.11 Solid outputs
o 2.12 Other pollution issues
3 Debate
o 3.1 Arguments for incineration
o 3.2 Arguments against incineration
4 Trends in incinerator use
o 4.1 Incineration in North America
o 4.2 Incineration in Europe
o 4.3 Incineration in the United Kingdom
o 4.4 Incineration Units for emergency use
o 4.5 Small incinerator units
5 In popular media
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
o 8.1 Anti-incineration groups
o 8.2 British Society for Ecological Medicine
o 8.3 Burn barrels
o 8.4 EU information
o 8.5 International Solid Waste Association position
o 8.6 Overviews
o 8.7 Tutorials
o 8.8 Diagrams

History[edit]

Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. 1894 destructor furnace at Cambridge Museum of Technology

The first incinerators for waste disposal were built in Nottingham by Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. in
1874 to a design patented by Albert Fryer. They were originally known as destructors.[5]
The first US incinerator was built in 1885 on Governors Island in New York, NY.[6]
The first facility in Czech Republic was built in 1905 in Brno.[7]

Technology[edit]
An incinerator is a furnace for burning waste. Modern incinerators include pollution mitigation
equipment such as flue gas cleaning. There are various types of incinerator plant design: moving
grate, fixed grate, rotary-kiln, and fluidised bed.

Burn pile[edit]
The burn pile, or burn pit is one of the simplest and earliest forms of waste disposal, essentially
consisting of a mound of combustible materials piled on bare ground and set on fire. Indiscriminate
piles of household waste are strongly discouraged and may be illegal in urban areas, but are
permitted in certain rural situations such as clearing forested land for farming, where the stumps are
uprooted and burned.[8] Rural burn piles of yard waste are allowed in many rural communities, along
with small quantities of domestic or agricultural waste generated on site, though not large
quantities asphalt shingles, plastics, or other petroleum products that can produce dense black
smoke.[8]
Burn piles can and have spread uncontrolled fires, for example if wind blows burning material off the
pile into surrounding combustible grasses or onto buildings. As interior structures of the pile are
consumed, the pile can shift and collapse, spreading the burn area. Even in a situation of no wind,
small lightweight ignited embers can lift off the pile viaconvection, and waft through the air into
grasses or onto buildings, igniting them.

Burn barrel[edit]
The burn barrel is a somewhat more controlled form of private waste incineration, containing the
burning material inside a metal barrel, with a metal grating over the exhaust. The barrel prevents the
spread of burning material in windy conditions, and as the combustibles are reduced they can only

settle down into the barrel. The exhaust grating helps to prevent the spread of burning embers.
Typically steel 55-US-gallon (210 L) drums are used as burn barrels, with air vent holes cut or drilled
around the base for air intake.[9] Over time, the very high heat of incineration causes the metal to
oxidize and rust, and eventually the barrel itself is consumed by the heat and must be replaced.
Private burning of dry cellulosic/paper products is generally clean-burning, producing no visible
smoke, but plastics in household waste can cause private burning to create a public nuisance,
generating acrid odors and fumes that make eyes burn and water. Most urban communities ban
burn barrels, and certain rural communities may have prohibitions on open burning, especially those
home to many residents not familiar with this common rural practice.
In the United States, private rural incineration of small quantities of household or farm waste is
typically permitted so long as it is not a nuisance to others, does not pose a risk of fire such as in dry
conditions, and the fire does not produce dense, noxious smoke. However, a handful of states, such
as New York, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have laws or regulations either banning or strictly
regulating open burning to concerns about health and nuisance impacts of open burning.[10] People
intending to burn waste may be required to contact a state agency in advance to check current fire
risk and conditions, and to alert officials of the controlled fire that will occur.[11]

Moving grate[edit]

Control room of a typical moving grate incinerator overseeing two boiler lines

The typical incineration plant for municipal solid waste is a moving grate incinerator. The moving
grate enables the movement of waste through the combustion chamber to be optimised to allow a
more efficient and complete combustion. A single moving grate boiler can handle up to 35 metric
tons (39 short tons) of waste per hour, and can operate 8,000 hours per year with only one
scheduled stop for inspection and maintenance of about one month's duration.[12] Moving grate
incinerators are sometimes referred to as Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (MSWIs).

The waste is introduced by a waste crane through the "throat" at one end of the grate, from where it
moves down over the descending grate to the ash pit in the other end. Here the ash is removed
through a water lock.

Municipal solid waste in the furnace of a moving grate incinerator capable of handling 15 metric tons (17 short tons)
of waste per hour. The holes in the grate elements supplying the primary combustion air are visible.

Part of the combustion air (primary combustion air) is supplied through the grate from below. This air
flow also has the purpose of cooling the grate itself. Cooling is important for the mechanical strength
of the grate, and many moving grates are also water-cooled internally.
Secondary combustion air is supplied into the boiler at high speed through nozzles over the grate. It
facilitates complete combustion of the flue gases by introducing turbulence for better mixing and by
ensuring a surplus of oxygen. In multiple/stepped hearth incinerators, the secondary combustion air
is introduced in a separate chamber downstream the primary combustion chamber.
According to the European Waste Incineration Directive, incineration plants must be designed to
ensure that the flue gases reach a temperature of at least 850 C (1,560 F) for 2 seconds in order to
ensure proper breakdown of toxic organic substances. In order to comply with this at all times, it is
required to install backup auxiliary burners (often fueled by oil), which are fired into the boiler in case
the heating value of the waste becomes too low to reach this temperature alone.
The flue gases are then cooled in the superheaters, where the heat is transferred to steam, heating
the steam to typically 400 C (752 F) at a pressure of 40 bars (580 psi) for the electricity generation
in theturbine. At this point, the flue gas has a temperature of around 200 C (392 F), and is passed
to the flue gas cleaning system.
In Scandinavia, scheduled maintenance is always performed during summer, where the demand
for district heating is low. Often, incineration plants consist of several separate 'boiler lines' (boilers
and flue gas treatment plants), so that waste can continue to be received at one boiler line while the
others are undergoing maintenance, repair, or upgrading.

Fixed grate[edit]

The older and simpler kind of incinerator was a brick-lined cell with a fixed metal grate over a lower
ash pit, with one opening in the top or side for loading and another opening in the side for removing
incombustible solids called clinkers. Many small incinerators formerly found in apartment houses
have now been replaced by waste compactors.

Rotary-kiln[edit]
The rotary-kiln incinerator[13] is used by municipalities and by large industrial plants. This design of
incinerator has 2 chambers: a primary chamber and secondary chamber. The primary chamber in a
rotary kiln incinerator consist of an inclined refractory lined cylindrical tube. The inner refractory lining
serves as sacrificial layer to protect the kiln structure. This refractory layer needs to be replaced from
time to time.[14] Movement of the cylinder on its axis facilitates movement of waste. In the primary
chamber, there is conversion of solid fraction to gases, through volatilization, destructive distillation
and partial combustion reactions. The secondary chamber is necessary to complete gas phase
combustion reactions.
The clinkers spill out at the end of the cylinder. A tall flue-gas stack, fan, or steam jet supplies the
needed draft. Ash drops through the grate, but many particles are carried along with the hot gases.
The particles and any combustible gases may be combusted in an "afterburner".[15]

Fluidized bed[edit]
A strong airflow is forced through a sandbed. The air seeps through the sand until a point is reached
where the sand particles separate to let the air through and mixing and churning occurs, thus
a fluidized bed is created and fuel and waste can now be introduced.
The sand with the pre-treated waste and/or fuel is kept suspended on pumped air currents and takes
on a fluid-like character. The bed is thereby violently mixed and agitated keeping small inert particles
and air in a fluid-like state. This allows all of the mass of waste, fuel and sand to be fully circulated
through the furnace.

Specialized incineration[edit]
Furniture factory sawdust incinerators need much attention as these have to handle resin powder
and many flammable substances. Controlled combustion, burn back prevention systems are
essential as dust when suspended resembles the fire catch phenomenon of any liquid petroleum
gas.

Use of heat[edit]
The heat produced by an incinerator can be used to generate steam which may then be used to
drive a turbine in order to produce electricity. The typical amount of net energy that can be produced
per tonne municipal waste is about 2/3 MWh of electricity and 2 MWh of district heating.[2] Thus,
incinerating about 600 metric tons (660 short tons) per day of waste will produce about 400 MWh of

electrical energy per day (17 MW of electrical power continuously for 24 hours) and 1200 MWh of
district heating energy each day.

Pollution[edit]
Incineration has a number of outputs such as the ash and the emission to the atmosphere of flue
gas. Before the flue gas cleaning system, if installed, the flue gases may contain significant amounts
of particulate matter, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, sulfur dioxide, methane, and hydrochloric acid. If
plants have inadequate controls, these outputs may add a significant pollution component to stack
emissions.
In a study from 1997, Delaware Solid Waste Authority found that, for same amount of produced
energy, incineration plants emitted fewer particles, hydrocarbons and less SO2, HCl, CO and
NOx than coal-fired power plants, but more than natural gasfired power plants.[16] According
to Germany's Ministry of the Environment, waste incinerators reduce the amount of some
atmospheric pollutants by substituting power produced by coal-fired plants with power from wastefired plants.[17]

Gaseous emissions[edit]
Dioxin and furans[edit]
The most publicized concerns from environmentalists about the incineration of municipal solid
wastes (MSW) involve the fear that it produces significant amounts
of dioxin andfuran emissions.[18] Dioxins and furans are considered by many to be serious health
hazards. The EPA announced in 2012 that the safe limit for human oral consumption is 0.7
picograms Toxic Equivalence (TEQ) per kilogram bodyweight per day,[19] which works out to 17
billionths of a gram for a 150 lb person per year.
In 2005, The Ministry of the Environment of Germany, where there were 66 incinerators at that time,
estimated that "...whereas in 1990 one third of all dioxin emissions in Germany came from
incineration plants, for the year 2000 the figure was less than 1%. Chimneys and tiled stoves in
private households alone discharge approximately 20 times more dioxin into the environment than
incineration plants."[17]
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency,[10] the combustion percentages of
the total dioxin and furan inventory from all known and estimated sources in the U.S. (not only
incineration) for each type of incineration are as follows: 35.1% backyard barrels; 26.6% medical
waste; 6.3% municipal wastewater treatment sludge; 5.9% municipal waste combustion; 2.9%
industrial wood combustion. Thus, the controlled combustion of waste accounted for 41.7% of the
total dioxin inventory.
In 1987, before the governmental regulations required the use of emission controls, there was a total
of 8,905.1 grams (314.12 oz) Toxic Equivalence (TEQ) of dioxin emissions from US municipal waste

combustors. Today, the total emissions from the plants are 83.8 grams (2.96 oz) TEQ annually, a
reduction of 99%.
Backyard barrel burning of household and garden wastes, still allowed in some rural areas,
generates 580 grams (20 oz) of dioxins annually. Studies conducted by the US-EPA[20] demonstrated
that the emissions from just one family using a burn barrel produced more emissions than an
incineration plant disposing of 200 metric tons (220 short tons) of waste per day by 1997 and five
times that by 2007 due to increased chemicals in household trash and decreased emissions by
municipal incinerators using better technology.[21]
However, the same researchers found that their original estimates for the burn barrel were high, and
that the incineration plant used for comparison represented a theoretical 'clean' plant rather than any
existing facility. Their later studies [22] found that burn barrels produced a median of 24.95 nanograms
TEQ per lb garbage burned, so that a family burning 5 lbs of trash per day, or 1825 lbs per year,
produces a total of 0.0455 mg TEQ per year, and that the equivalent number of burn barrels for the
83.8 grams (2.96 oz) of the 251 municipal waste combustors inventoried by the EPA in the U.S. in
2000,[10] is 1,841,700, or on average, 7337 family burn barrels per municipal waste incinerator.
Most of the improvement in U.S. dioxin emissions has been for large-scale municipal waste
incinerators. As of the year 2000, although small-scale incinerators (those with a daily capacity of
less than 250 tons) processed only 9% of the total waste combusted, these produced 83% of the
dioxins and furans emitted by municipal waste combustion.[10]
Dioxin cracking methods and limitations[edit]
Generally, the breakdown of dioxin requires exposure of the molecular ring to a sufficiently high
temperature so as to trigger thermal breakdown of the strong molecular bonds holding it together.
Small pieces of fly ash may be somewhat thick, and too brief an exposure to high temperature may
only degrade dioxin on the surface of the ash. For a large volume air chamber, too brief an exposure
may also result in only some of the exhaust gases reaching the full breakdown temperature. For this
reason there is also a time element to the temperature exposure to ensure heating completely
through the thickness of the fly ash and the volume of waste gases.
There are trade-offs between increasing either the temperature or exposure time. Generally where
the molecular breakdown temperature is higher, the exposure time for heating can be shorter, but
excessively high temperatures can also cause wear and damage to other parts of the incineration
equipment. Likewise the breakdown temperature can be lowered to some degree but then the
exhaust gases would require a greater lingering period of perhaps several minutes, which would
require large/long treatment chambers that take up a great deal of treatment plant space.
A side effect of breaking the strong molecular bonds of dioxin is the potential for breaking the bonds
of nitrogen gas (N2) and oxygen gas (O2) in the supply air. As the exhaust flow cools, these highly
reactive detached atoms spontaneously reform bonds into reactive oxides such as NOx in the flue

gas, which can result in smog formation and acid rain if they were released directly into the local
environment. These reactive oxides must be further neutralized with selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (see below).
Dioxin cracking in practice[edit]
The temperatures needed to break down dioxin are typically not reached when burning plastics
outdoors in a burn barrel or garbage pit, causing high dioxin emissions as mentioned above. While
plastic does usually burn in an open-air fire, the dioxins remain after combustion and either float off
into the atmosphere, or may remain in the ash where it can be leached down into groundwater when
rain falls on the ash pile. Fortunately, dioxin and furan compounds bond very strongly to solid
surfaces and are not dissolved by water, so leaching processes are limited to the first few milimeters
below the ash pile. The gas-phase dioxins can be substantially destroyed using catalysts, some of
which can be present as part of the fabric filter bag structure.
Modern municipal incinerator designs include a high-temperature zone, where the flue gas is
sustained at a temperature above 850 C (1,560 F) for at least 2 seconds before it is cooled down.
They are equipped with auxiliary heaters to ensure this at all times. These are often fueled by oil or
natural gas, and are normally only active for a very small fraction of the time. Further, most modern
incinerators utilize fabric filters (often with Teflon membranes to enhance collection of sub-micron
particles) which can capture dioxins present in or on solid particles.
For very small municipal incinerators, the required temperature for thermal breakdown of dioxin may
be reached using a high-temperature electrical heating element, plus aselective catalytic
reduction stage.
Although dioxins and furans may be destroyed by combustion, their reformation by a process known
as 'de novo synthesis' as the emission gases cool is a probable source of the dioxins measured in
emission stack tests from plants that have high combustion temperatures held at long residence
times.[10]
CO2[edit]
As for other complete combustion processes, nearly all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted
as CO2 to the atmosphere. MSW contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as
CO2 itself (27%), so incineration of 1 ton of MSW produces approximately 1 ton of CO2.
If the waste was landfilled, 1 ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic metres
(2,200 cu ft) methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. Since
the global warming potential of methane is 21 and the weight of 62 cubic meters of methane at 25
degrees Celsius is 40.7 kg, this is equivalent to 0.854 ton of CO2, which is less than the 1 ton of
CO2 which would have been produced by incineration. In some countries, large amounts of landfill
gas are collected, but still the global warming potential of the landfill gas emitted to atmosphere in

the US in 1999 was approximately 32% higher than the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted
by incineration.[23]
In addition, nearly all biodegradable waste has biological origin. This material has been formed by
plants using atmospheric CO2 typically within the last growing season. If these plants are regrown
the CO2 emitted from their combustion will be taken out from the atmosphere once more.
Such considerations are the main reason why several countries administrate incineration of the
biodegradable part of waste as renewable energy.[24] The rest mainly plastics and other oil and gas
derived products is generally treated as non-renewables.
Different results for the CO2 footprint of incineration can be reached with different assumptions. Local
conditions (such as limited local district heating demand, no fossil fuel generated electricity to
replace or high levels of aluminium in the waste stream) can decrease the CO2 benefits of
incineration. The methodology and other assumptions may also influence the results significantly.
For example the methane emissions from landfills occurring at a later date may be neglected or
given less weight, or biodegradable waste may not be considered CO2 neutral. A study by Eunomia
Research and Consulting in 2008 on potential waste treatment technologies in London
demonstrated that by applying several of these (according to the authors) unusual assumptions the
average existing incineration plants performed poorly for CO2 balance compared to the theoretical
potential of other emerging waste treatment technologies.[25]
Other emissions[edit]
Other gaseous emissions in the flue gas from incinerator furnaces include nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, hydrochloric acid, heavy metals, and fine particles. Of the heavy metals,mercury is a major
concern due to its toxicity and high volatility, as essentially all mercury in the municipal waste stream
may exit in emissions if not removed by emission controls.[26]
The steam content in the flue may produce visible fume from the stack, which can be perceived as
a visual pollution. It may be avoided by decreasing the steam content by flue-gas condensation and
reheating, or by increasing the flue gas exit temperature well above its dew point. Flue-gas
condensation allows the latent heat of vaporization of the water to be recovered, subsequently
increasing the thermal efficiency of the plant.
Flue-gas cleaning[edit]

Electrodes inside electrostatic precipitator

The quantity of pollutants in the flue gas from incineration plants may or may not be reduced by
several processes, depending on the plant.
Particulate is collected by particle filtration, most often electrostatic precipitators (ESP)
and/or baghouse filters. The latter are generally very efficient for collecting fine particles. In an
investigation by the Ministry of the Environment of Denmark in 2006, the average particulate
emissions per energy content of incinerated waste from 16 Danish incinerators were below
2.02 g/GJ (grams per energy content of the incinerated waste). Detailed measurements of fine
particles with sizes below 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) were performed on three of the incinerators: One
incinerator equipped with an ESP for particle filtration emitted 5.3 g/GJ fine particles, while two
incinerators equipped with baghouse filters emitted 0.002 and 0.013 g/GJ PM2.5. For ultra fine
particles (PM1.0), the numbers were 4.889 g/GJ PM1.0 from the ESP plant, while emissions of 0.000
and 0.008 g/GJ PM1.0 were measured from the plants equipped with baghouse filters.[27][28]
Acid gas scrubbers are used to remove hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, mercury, lead
and other heavy metals. The efficiency of removal will depend on the specific equipment, the
chemical composition of the waste, the design of the plant, the chemistry of reagents, and the ability
of engineers to optimize these conditions, which may conflict for different pollutants. For example,
mercury removal by wet scrubbers is considered coincidental and may be less than 50%.[26]Basic
scrubbers remove sulfur dioxide, forming gypsum by reaction with lime.[29]
Waste water from scrubbers must subsequently pass through a waste water treatment plant.
Sulfur dioxide may also be removed by dry desulfurisation by injection limestone slurry into the flue
gas before the particle filtration.
NOx is either reduced by catalytic reduction with ammonia in a catalytic converter (selective catalytic
reduction, SCR) or by a high-temperature reaction with ammonia in the furnace (selective noncatalytic reduction, SNCR). Urea may be substituted for ammonia as the reducing reagent but must
be supplied earlier in the process so that it can hydrolyze into ammonia. Substitution of urea can
reduce costs and potential hazards associated with storage of anhydrous ammonia.

Heavy metals are often adsorbed on injected active carbon powder, which is collected by the particle
filtration.

Solid outputs[edit]

Operation of an incinerator aboard anaircraft carrier

Incineration produces fly ash and bottom ash just as is the case when coal is combusted. The total
amount of ash produced by municipal solid waste incineration ranges from 4 to 10% by volume and
1520% by weight of the original quantity of waste,[2][30] and the fly ash amounts to about 1020% of
the total ash.[citation needed] The fly ash, by far, constitutes more of a potential health hazard than does the
bottom ash because the fly ash often contain high concentrations of heavy metals such as
lead, cadmium, copper andzinc as well as small amounts of dioxins and furans.[31] The bottom ash
seldom contain significant levels of heavy metals. In testing over the past decade, no ash from an
incineration plant in the USA has ever been determined to be a hazardous waste.[citation needed]At present
although some historic samples tested by the incinerator operators' group would meet the being
ecotoxic criteria at present the EA say "we have agreed" to regard incinerator bottom ash as "nonhazardous" until the testing programme is complete.[citation needed]

Other pollution issues[edit]

Odor pollution can be a problem with old-style incinerators, but odors and dust are extremely well
controlled in newer incineration plants. They receive and store the waste in an enclosed area with a
negative pressure with the airflow being routed through the boiler which prevents unpleasant
odors from escaping into the atmosphere. However, not all plants are implemented this way,
resulting in inconveniences in the locality.
An issue that affects community relationships is the increased road traffic of waste collection
vehicles to transport municipal waste to the incinerator. Due to this reason, most incinerators are
located in industrial areas. This problem can be avoided to an extent through the transport of waste
by rail from transfer stations.

Debate[edit]

Use of incinerators for waste management is controversial. The debate over incinerators typically
involves business interests (representing both waste generators and incinerator firms), government
regulators, environmental activists and local citizens who must weigh the economic appeal of local
industrial activity with their concerns over health and environmental risk.
People and organizations professionally involved in this issue include the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and a great many local and national air quality regulatory agencies worldwide.

Arguments for incineration[edit]

KehrichtverbrennungsanlageZrcher Oberland (KEZO) in Hinwil, Switzerland

The concerns over the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions have been significantly
lessened by advances in emission control designs and very stringent new governmental
regulations that have resulted in large reductions in the amount of dioxins and furans
emissions.[17]

The U.K. Health Protection Agency concluded in 2009 that "Modern, well managed incinerators
make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is possible that such
small additions could have an impact on health but such effects, if they exist, are likely to be
very small and not detectable.".[32]

Incineration plants can generate electricity and heat that can substitute power plants powered by
other fuels at the regional electric and district heating grid, and steam supply for industrial
customers. Incinerators and other waste-to-energy plants generate at least partially biomassbased renewable energy that offsets greenhouse gas pollution from coal-, oil- and gas-fired
power plants.[33] The E.U. considers energy generated from biogenic waste (waste with biological
origin) by incinerators as non-fossil renewable energy under its emissions caps. These
greenhouse gas reductions are in addition to those generated by the avoidance of landfill
methane.

The bottom ash residue remaining after combustion has been shown to be a non-hazardous
solid waste that can be safely put into landfills or recycled as construction aggregate. Samples
are tested for ecotoxic metals.[34]

In densely populated areas, finding space for additional landfills is becoming increasingly
difficult.


The Maishima waste treatment center in Osaka, designed by Friedensreich Hundertwasser, uses heat for power
generation.

Fine particles can be efficiently removed from the flue gases with baghouse filters. Even though
approximately 40% of the incinerated waste in Denmark was incinerated at plants with no
baghouse filters, estimates based on measurements by the Danish Environmental Research
Institute showed that incinerators were only responsible for approximately 0.3% of the total
domestic emissions of particulate smaller than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) to the atmosphere in
2006.[27][28]

Incineration of municipal solid waste avoids the release of methane. Every ton of MSW
incinerated, prevents about one ton of carbon dioxide equivalents from being released to the
atmosphere.[23]

Incineration of medical waste and sewage sludge produces an end product ash that is sterile
and non-hazardous.[citation needed]

Most municipalities that operate incineration facilities have higher recycling rates than
neighboring cities and counties that do not send their waste to incinerators.[35] This is in part due
to enhanced recovery of ceramic materials reused in construction, as well as ferrous and in
some cases non-ferrous metals that can be recovered from combustion residue.[36] Metals
recovered from ash would typically be difficult or impossible to recycle through conventional
means, as the removal of attached combustible material through incineration provides an
alternative to labor- or energy-intensive mechanical separation methods.

Volume of combusted waste is reduced by approximately 90%, increasing the life of landfills.
Ash from modern incinerators is vitrified at temperatures of 1,000 C (1,830 F) to 1,100 C
(2,010 F), reducing the leachability and toxicity of residue. As a result, special landfills are
generally no longer required for incinerator ash from municipal waste streams, and existing
landfills can see their life dramatically increased by combusting waste, reducing the need for
municipalities to site and construct new landfills.[37][38]

Arguments against incineration[edit]

Decommissioned Kwai Chung Incineration Plantfrom 1978. By February 2009, it had been demolished.

The Scottish Protection Agency's (SEPA) comprehensive health effects research concluded
"inconclusively" on health effects in October 2009. The authors stress, that even though no
conclusive evidence of non-occupational health effects from incinerators were found in the
existing literature, "small but important effects might be virtually impossible to detect". The report
highlights epidemiological deficiencies in previous UK health studies and suggests areas for
future studies.[39]The U.K. Health Protection Agency produced a lesser summary in September
2009.[32] Many toxiocologists criticise and dispute this report as not being comprehensive
epidemiologically, thin on peer review and the effects of fine particle effects on health.[citation needed]

The highly toxic fly ash must be safely disposed of. This usually involves additional waste miles
and the need for specialist toxic waste landfill elsewhere. If not done properly, it may cause
concerns for local residents.[40][41]

Some people are still concerned about the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions into the
atmosphere from old incinerators; especially during start up and shut down, or where filter
bypass is required.

Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium,
nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.

Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) has elevated levels of heavy metals with ecotoxicity concerns if not
reused properly. Some people have the opinion that IBA reuse is still in its infancy and is still not
considered to be a mature or desirable product, despite additional engineering treatments.
Concerns of IBA use in foam concrete have been expressed by the UK Health and Safety
Executive in 2010 following several construction and demolition explosions. In its guidance
document, IBA is currently banned from use by the UK Highway Authority in concrete work until
these incidents have been investigated.[42]

Alternative technologies are available or in development such as Mechanical Biological

Treatment, Anaerobic Digestion(MBT/AD), Autoclaving or Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT)
using steam or plasma arc gasification (PGP), which is incineration using electrically produced
extreme high temperatures, or combinations of these treatments.

Erection of incinerators compete with the development and introduction of other emerging
technologies. A UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK median
incinerator costs per ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by 18 per metric
ton; and 27 per metric ton for most modern (post 2000) incinerators.[43][44]

Building and operating waste processing plants such as incinerators requires long contract
periods to recover initial investment costs, causing a long term lock-in. Incinerator lifetimes
normally range 2530 years. This was highlighted by Peter Jones, OBE, the Mayor of London's
waste representative in April 2009.[45]

Incinerators produce fine particles in the furnace. Even with modern particle filtering of the flue
gases, a small part of these is emitted to the atmosphere. PM2.5 is not separately regulated in the
European Waste Incineration Directive, even though they are repeatedly correlated spatially to
infant mortality in the UK (M. Ryan's ONS data based maps around the EfW/CHP waste
incinerators at Edmonton, Coventry, Chineham, Kirklees and Sheffield).[46][47][48] Under WID there
is no requirement to monitor stack top or downwind incinerator PM2.5 levels.[49] Several European
doctors associations (including cross discipline experts such as physicians, environmental
chemists and toxicologists) in June 2008 representing over 33,000 doctors wrote a keynote
statement directly to the European Parliament citing widespread concerns on incinerator particle
emissions and the absence of specific fine and ultrafine particle size monitoring or in depth
industry/government epidemiological studies of these minute and invisible incinerator particle
size emissions.[50]

Local communities are often opposed to the idea of locating waste processing plants such as
incinerators in their vicinity (the Not in My Back Yard phenomenon). Studies inAndover,
Massachusetts strongly correlated 10% property devaluations with close incinerator proximity.[51]

Prevention, waste minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste should all be preferred to
incineration according to the waste hierarchy. Supporters of zero waste consider incinerators
and other waste treatment technologies as barriers to recycling and separation beyond particular
levels, and that waste resources are sacrificed for energy production.[52][53][54]

A 2008 Eunomia report found that under some circumstances and assumptions, incineration
causes less CO2 reduction than other emerging EfW and CHP technology combinations for
treating residual mixed waste.[25] The authors found that CHP incinerator technology without
waste recycling ranked 19 out of 24 combinations (where all alternatives to incineration were
combined with advanced waste recycling plants); being 228% less efficient than the ranked 1
Advanced MBT maturation technology; or 211% less efficient than plasma
gasification/autoclaving combination ranked 2.

Some incinerators are visually undesirable. In many countries they require a visually intrusive
chimney stack.

If reusable waste fractions are handled in waste processing plants such as incinerators in
developing nations, it would cut out viable work for local economies. It is estimated that there are
1 million people making a livelihood off collecting waste.[55]

The reduced levels of emissions from municipal waste incinerators and waste to energy plants
from historical peaks are largely the product of the proficient use of emission control technology.
Emission controls add to the initial and operational expenses. It should not be assumed that all
new plants will employ the best available control technology if not required by law.

Trends in incinerator use[edit]

The history of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration is linked intimately to the history
of landfills and other waste treatment technology. The merits of incineration are inevitably judged in
relation to the alternatives available. Since the 1970s, recycling and other prevention measures have
changed the context for such judgements. Since the 1990s alternative waste treatment technologies
have been maturing and becoming viable.
Incineration is a key process in the treatment of hazardous wastes and clinical wastes. It is often
imperative that medical waste be subjected to the high temperatures of incineration to
destroy pathogens and toxic contamination it contains.

Incineration in North America[edit]

The first incinerator in the U.S. was built in 1885 on Governors Island in New York.[56] In 1949, Robert
C. Ross founded one of the first hazardous waste management companies in the U.S. He began
Robert Ross Industrial Disposal because he saw an opportunity to meet the hazardous waste
management needs of companies in northern Ohio. In 1958, the company built one of the first
hazardous waste incinerators in the U.S.[57] The first full-scale, municipally operated incineration
facility in the U.S. was the Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant, built in 1975 and located
in Ames, Iowa. This plant is still in operation and produces refuse-derived fuel that is sent to local
power plants for fuel.[58] The first commercially successful incineration plant in the U.S. was built

in Saugus, Massachusetts in October 1975 by Wheelabrator Technologies, and is still in operation

today.[30]
There are several environmental or waste management corporations that transport ultimately to an
incinerator or cement kiln treatment center. Currently (2009), there are three main businesses that
incinerate waste: Clean Harbours, WTI-Heritage, and Ross Incineration Services. Clean Harbours
has acquired many of the smaller, independently run facilities, accumulating 57 incinerators in the
process across the U.S. WTI-Heritage has one incinerator, located in the southeastern corner
of Ohio (across the Ohio River from West Virginia).
Several old generation incinerators have been closed; of the 186 MSW incinerators in 1990, only 89
remained by 2007, and of the 6200 medical waste incinerators in 1988, only 115 remained in
2003.[59] No new incinerators were built between 1996 and 2007. The main reasons for lack of activity
have been:

Economics. With the increase in the number of large inexpensive regional landfills and, up until
recently, the relatively low price of electricity, incinerators were not able to compete for the 'fuel',
i.e., waste in the U.S.

Tax policies. Tax credits for plants producing electricity from waste were rescinded in the U.S.
between 1990 and 2004.

There has been renewed interest in incineration and other waste-to-energy technologies in the U.S.
and Canada. In the U.S., incineration was granted qualification for renewable energy production tax
credits in 2004.[60] Projects to add capacity to existing plants are underway, and municipalities are
once again evaluating the option of building incineration plants rather than continue landfilling
municipal wastes. However, many of these projects have faced continued political opposition in spite
of renewed arguments for the greenhouse gas benefits of incineration and improved air pollution
control and ash recycling.

Incineration in Europe[edit]
In Europe, with the ban on landfilling untreated waste, scores of incinerators have been built in the
last decade, with more under construction. Recently, a number of municipal governments have
begun the process of contracting for the construction and operation of incinerators. In Europe, some
of the electricity generated from waste is deemed to be from a 'Renewable Energy Source (RES)
and is thus eligible for tax credits if privately operated. Also, some incinerators in Europe are
equipped with waste recovery, allowing the reuse of ferrous and non-ferrous materials found in
landfills. A prominent example is the AEB Waste Fired Power Plant.[61][62]

Incineration in the United Kingdom[edit]

The technology employed in the UK waste management industry has been greatly lagging behind
that of Europe due to the wide availability of landfills. The Landfill Directive set down by

the European Union led to the Government of the United Kingdom imposing waste
legislation including the landfill tax and Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. This legislation is
designed to reduce the release of greenhouse gases produced by landfills through the use of
alternative methods of waste treatment. It is the UK Government's position that incineration will play
an increasingly large role in the treatment of municipal waste and supply of energy in the UK.
In 2008, plans for potential incinerator locations exists for approximately 100 sites. These have been
interactively mapped by UK NGO's.[63][64][65][66]
Under a new plan in June 2012, a DEFRA-backed grant scheme (The Farming and Forestry
Improvement Scheme) was set up to encourage the use of low-capacity incinerators on agricultural
sites to improve their bio security.[67]
See the list of incinerators in the UK.

Incineration Units for emergency use[edit]

Mobile incineration unit for emergency use

Emergency incineration systems exist for the urgent and biosecure disposal of animals and their byproducts following a mass mortality or disease outbreak. An increase in regulation and enforcement
from governments and institutions worldwide has been forced through public pressure and
significant economic exposure.
Contagious animal disease has cost governments and industry $200 billion over 20 years to 2012
and is responsible for over 65% of infectious disease outbreaks worldwide in the past sixty years.
One-third of global meat exports (approx 6 million tonnes) is affected by trade restrictions at any time
and as such the focus of Governments, public bodies and commercial operators is on cleaner, safer
and more robust methods of animal carcass disposal to contain and control disease.

Large-scale incineration systems are available from niche suppliers and are often bought by
governments as a safety net in case of contagious outbreak. Many are mobile and can be quickly
deployed to locations requiring biosecure disposal.

Small incinerator units[edit]

An example of a low capacity, mobile incinerator

Small-scale incinerators exist for special purposes. For example, the small-scale[68]incinerators are
aimed for hygienically safe destruction of medical waste in developing countries. Small incinerators
can be quickly deployed to remote areas where an outbreak has occurred to dispose of infected
animals quickly and without the risk of cross contamination.[citation needed]

In popular media[edit]

Incinerators make an appearance in SimCity 3000 in two varieties: a large, traditional

combustion device that spews out a significant amount of air pollution, and a more modern
device that converts the waste into energy to power the city with a bigger capacity to load the
garbage, though still producing a lot of pollution.

They also make an appearance in SimCity 4, but without the non-energy-from-waste variant.

In the climax of Portal (video game), the main protagonist, Chell, while on a conveyor belt,
escapes an incinerator, after the game's main antagonist, GLaDOS, forced her into it.

The climax of Toy Story 3 features an infamous scene, where the working of a movinggrate incinerator (and of a garbage shredder) was shown dramatically from the inside, as the
toys face destruction.